TREATMENT? ONLY SOMETIMES

The recent debate over Hawai'i's new law to provide a treatment alternative
to prison for nonviolent drug offenders, and Prosecutor Peter Carlisle's
assertion that only six of the 3,920 inmates in Hawai'i's prisons would be
appropriate for such a program, indicate some confusion about the
relationships among drugs, crime and incarceration.

Perhaps a look at the numbers can clear things up. The following information
from the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site (
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs ) highlights some of the latest and most
detailed information on drugs, crime and the prison population.

Let's begin with the good news. Our prisons may be bulging at the seams, but
they are not filled to overflowing with hapless souls who got caught smoking
pot on their back porch. At the end of the 1990s, over 91 percent of inmates
in America's state prisons were either violent criminals or repeat
offenders. We are locking up more dangerous people and career criminals, and
our communities are safer for it.

About 11 percent of state prisoners in 1997 were drug traffickers, and less
than 9 percent were behind bars for drug possession. The state prison
population grew rapidly in the 1990s, but not because of drug offenders.

Violent criminals accounted for 51 percent of the growth in state prisoners
in the '90s while drug offenders made up only a fifth of population growth.

There are three distinct groups of people who are in prison because of
drugs: 1) persons convicted of drug possession, 2) drug traffickers and 3)
persons with a drug or alcohol problem who have been convicted of non-drug
offenses. A rational corrections policy must balance the needs of justice
and the possibilities for rehabilitation for each of these classes of
offender.

In 1997, only 8.9 percent of state prison inmates were serving time for drug
possession. Some were sentenced under state laws mandating prison time for
hard drug possession. (Hawai'i has such a mandatory statute for possession
of methamphetamine.)

Others were parole violators. Still others were drug traffickers who
plea-bargained their offense down to possession. Some of these prisoners are
drug- or alcohol-addicted and would benefit from treatment. Some would not.
Some undoubtedly would be better off in community correctional settings.
Others are career criminals who deserve to be in prison.

A good case can be made for rethinking rigid mandatory sentencing rules that
deny courts and correction officials the flexibility to manage these
prisoners.

About 12 percent of state prisoners in 1997 were charged with drug
trafficking. Like prisoners charged with possession, traffickers are
technically "nonviolent offenders." Should they receive treatment rather
than punishment? Whether they are small-time street dealers or international
smugglers, all traffickers are part of an evil industry that wrecks lives,
corrupts communities and runs on blood.

Some traffickers are drug-dependent and could benefit from treatment. Some
are not. All are guilty of a serious crime, and we should not lightly let
them go unpunished.

Should we divert drug- and alcohol-using felons from prison to treatment?
There is no simple answer. Drug or alcohol use, even regular or heavy use,
does not automatically constitute dependence, and a diagnosis of addiction
does not necessarily mean that a person is ready to accept treatment.

Nor should drug or alcohol dependence automatically release a person from
responsibility for his acts. Many criminals are alcoholics, but most
alcoholics are not criminals.

We should certainly increase treatment resources in prison and expand
community alternatives for those felons whose offense and treatment needs
warrant it. We should not, as some propose, simply open the prison door for
every felon with a drug or alcohol problem.